According to research from energy firm E.ON, girls prefer video games to dolls. The research also reveals that boys prefer electronic gadgets and game systems to building sets. This shift from traditional toys to electronic entertainment comes at the expense of toys such as Lego, Meccanno, Barbie, and Cabbage Patch Dolls, according to the data - gleaned from a survey of 2,000 participants.

The popularity of electronic toys has increased substantially, putting the category in fifth place as the most popular play things among respondents. Construction sets and toys are still popular enough to hold onto the second spot, with 18 percent of children naming them as their favorite, while dolls took third place with 16 percent, and board games were just 3 percent.

Adrian Voce OBE, a former director of Play England, said it was unlikely that dolls would ever die out completely.

"Dolls may no longer be the top toy for girls but I don’t see them dying out anytime soon," he said. "Children like to play in ways that allows them to replicate an adult’s world and dolls allow them to do this. The dolls can play the roles of different people in children’s real or fantasy life and they can play a parent-figure."

"However, what is most important is children are actually playing," he added. "We have seen children can even play and have a good time with household items and junk."

He went on to say that it was important not to label electronics as the "bad guys" because children need to learn how to use these devices in an ever-increasingly computerized society, but worried that children might become too reliant on entertainment provided by "two dimensional screens."

He closes by saying that children need to have objects that they can "mold, rearrange, construct and deconstruct" because they help "develop their motor skills and hand-eye coordination."

Comments

well, when "building sets" and dolls end up far more expensive and with less replay value than a single video game.. we have an issue.

i mean really, has anyone seen the price of a lego set?! then your expected to build and forget them half the time.

or if you do disassemble them they're nearly impossible to rebuild thanks to the way the instructions are built around the numbered packages these days..

and the dolls.. just to get a new outfit you need to buy the same doll, or another one. outfit sets and accessories aren't separate anymore, and oft cost thrice as much because of this.

then we have games.. a small case, a small disk, and the system that plays it. less clutter, less overall end cost when time is put in, and easier to sell back via trade in (not to mention nets more)

am i the only one thats seeing the obvious? maybe if other toys cost LESS, as opposed to constantly getting higher in price for less, things might be different.

If ya haven't figured it yet, the parents may have the cash and the kids are getting to spend it as always, but the parents will try to be frugal too and push into the other direction as a result. not to mention games can be easily shared with others whereas a solid sit down toy can't. In the end the games end up a fair compromise in quality, time used, and socialization. not to mention as above, when the kids done with it just resell/trade it in and get a new one.

but 12 bux for a small 6 inch figure with a single gun accessory? $20 for one that has 2? how bout them starwars figures, they FINALLY got more joints added after 20 years, and still they feel like a ripoff as the price rises and the quality drops.

and don't get me started on how easily things break these days.. oye.. i remember TRYING to break GI Joe figures only to have that little rubber band snap'em back together and pinch the hell outta my hands.. the ball joints many use are nice to prevent breaking, but they become worn and loose before you even open the package half the time. :/

i feel old... i mean, i actually remember tonka trucks being made of STEAL instead of chinky plastic.. used to own a couple.. now they're all yellow plastic that just falls apart the first time its crashed into the wall :/

Actually, thanks to the marvel of science, the light directed in two different direction is of different colors, thus giving the impression of 3D. This is no more 3D than when the first pictures were taken or when anaglyph was used. The same way, I doubt you'd argue that old cathode-ray TVs are 3D due to the curvature of the screen. Furthermore, since that imitation is not perfect, it often causes people headaches or motion-sickness, especially if used over a long period of time. Holograms covers more of the ways the brain interpret 3D and thus cause less issue with people, if any, as with any technology based on them. Still, even those are not 3D screen (I think Cubee and similar technologies are the closest we have to 3D screen). Finally, while your first comment might have been in jest (albeit not clear), I think the discourse of the article was more about having children also do things manually and not just learn to wield electronics than in regards to any specific screen technology.

That last part was pretty much a given, but why waste a good podium when you have one? Spread knowledge is good knowledge :)
(I'm surprised no one jumped in the thread attacking the 3DS for it's infantile nature or some such yet...)